People

Services

Industries

Firm

About

Knowledge

Careers

News

Events

Contact

Connect

Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Accessibility

Legal

Calgary

Toronto

Edmonton

Ottawa

Vancouver

New York

Montréal

Preet K. Gill

Restructuring, Insolvency and Complex Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Toronto Managing Partner

Denise D. Bright

Public and Private Company Financial Transactions and Securities Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner 

As detailed in our prior blog, <a href="/Insights/Blogs/Canadian-Government-Finally-Provides-Certainty-on-Criminal-Interest-Rates">Canadian Government (Finally) Provides Certainty on Criminal Interest Rates</a>, the Government of Canada proposed amendments to lower the criminal interest rate to an annual percentage rate (APR) of 35 percent (the prior criminal interest rate, being an effective rate of 60 percent, was equivalent to an APR of about 48 percent).

Lower Criminal Interest Rate Now in Effect

Kelsey J. Meyer

Commercial Litigation, Bankruptcy, Insolvency and Restructuring Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner

Jesse Mighton

Insolvency and Restructuring Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In the unrelated companion cases of Aquino v Bondfield Construction Co, <a href="https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20694/index.do">2024 SCC 31</a> and Scott v Golden Oaks Enterprises Inc, <a href="https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/20695/index.do">2024 SCC 32</a>, the Supreme Court of Canada applied the common law doctrine of corporate attribution to bankruptcy and insolvency law through a purposive, contextual and pragmatic approach.

The SCC Clarifies the Corporate Attribution Doctrine and Creditor Protection Tools in Insolvency Law

Robert W. Staley

Commercial, Securities and Class Action Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Vice Chair and Partner

Doug Fenton

Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In ruling that a securities regulatory authority's disgorgement orders (a sanction stemming from misconduct) survive a bankruptcy discharge while its administrative penalties do not, the Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the principle that "every claim is swept into the bankruptcy and that the bankrupt is released from all of them upon being discharged unless the law sets out a clear exclusion or exemption." The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the differing treatment of administrative penalties and disgorgement orders in the context of exceptions outlined in s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Supreme Court Holds That Securities Disgorgement Orders Survive Bankruptcy

In a recent case, Bricklayers Pension Fund of Western Pennsylvania (derivatively on behalf of Centene Corporation) v Brinkley (Centene), Delaware's Court of Chancery dismissed “Caremark duty claims”—named after the 1996 case establishing a duty of oversight required by a U.S. board of directors—against members of Centene's board of directors.
Allegations against the directors focused on the failure to oversee, and deferral to, management. The decision confirms the high threshold applicable to find a breach of a director’s Caremark duty.

Delaware Court Affirms High Threshold for Breach of Directors Caremark Duties

Delaware Court Affirms High Threshold for Breach of Directors' Caremark Duties 

David Cassin

Employment Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

In McPherson v Global Growth Assets Inc., the Ontario Superior Court interpreted the no-reprisal provisions of the Securities Act for the first time, awarding more than $5.3 million to a CEO who was terminated after raising compliance concerns. The decision underscores the strength of the Act&rsquo;s protections for employees who engage in protected activities and highlights the significant risk to employers of taking disciplinary action without clear, documented justification.

Ontario Securities Act No Reprisal Provisions Results in 53 Million Award to CEO

Ontario Securities Act No-Reprisal Provisions Results in C$5.3 Million Award to CEO: A Warning to Regulated Employers

Edwin G. Kroft KC

Tax Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones

Antoine Messervier

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Associate

Anna Lekach

Tax Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

The November 2025 issue of Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes explores major developments in Canadian tax law, including new CRA guidance on the Voluntary Disclosures Program, court decisions on settlement confidentiality and costs, and proposed reforms to the Tax Court&rsquo;s informal procedure limits. The issue also features case summaries and insights from Bennett Jones&rsquo; tax litigators on emerging trends in tax dispute resolution.

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes Issue 39

Bennett Jones on Tax Disputes: November 2025

Benjamin K. Reingold

Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Makda Yohannes

Commercial Litigation Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Stephen D. Burns

Technology Lawyer, Intellectual Property Lawyer at Bennett Jones Calgary

Partner, Trademark Agent

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into creative workflows, the use of typefaces and fonts raises complex intellectual property challenges. This article examines the distinction between typefaces and fonts, the scope of copyright, trademark and industrial design protection in Canada, and how AI tools may heighten infringement risks. It also outlines practical steps for designers and businesses to ensure compliance through proper licensing and responsible AI use.

Understanding IP Infringement Risk in Typeface Use in AI Generated Content

Understanding IP Infringement Risk in Typeface Use in AI-Generated Content

Lisa Kakoske

Corporate and Securities Lawyer

Samantha Chenatte

Associate at Bennett Jones Vancouver

Globally, women represent nearly half of the agricultural workforce, yet they still face systemic barriers that prevent them from accessing, using and contributing to innovations in agricultural technology (Agritech), which is poised to transform agricultural systems across the world.

Gender Inclusivity Driving Growth in Agritech Industry

Sara G. Parchello

Brendan J. Weiler

Employment Services Lawyer at Bennett Jones Toronto

Two recent Ontario Superior Court decisions&mdash;Li v Wayfair Canada Inc. and Jones v Strides Toronto&mdash;clarify that the phrase &ldquo;at any time&rdquo; in a termination clause does not automatically invalidate an employment agreement under the ESA. While both cases distinguish earlier restrictive rulings, ongoing inconsistencies, including the Chan decision, highlight the need for appellate guidance. Employers should continue to review contracts carefully to ensure ESA compliance.

Termination At Any Time A Review of Recent Developments

Termination “At Any Time”? A Review of Recent Developments from Li v Wayfair Canada Inc. and Jones v Strides Toronto

Gone Fishing: Subsection 231.2(3) Hooks the Anonymous Tax Evader

From the Same Authors